UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansas edition editors. Signed columns represent the views of the writers.
DECEMBER 5,1978
Arbitration law needed
Bob Stephan, attorney general-elect,
fresh from his election day jount with
Democrat Curt Schneider, has re-
warded himself and now prepares to
battle the Kansas Legislature over a
long-needed binding arbitration law.
Stephan says he intends to press the Legislature this session for passage of a binding arbitration bill, which would be designed to resolve labor disputes between governmental and public employee groups.
CURRENT KANSAS law makes no provision for settlement of labor disputes when government and public workers are at an impasse. It allows fact-finding and mediation once an agreement is settled, but does not include arbitration.
Because of this, public employee unions, such as teachers, police and firefighter associations, generally favor binding arbitration, saying the current law gives an edge to government during contract talks.
THE IMPORTANCE of the law lies in its ability to prevent lengthy strikes of public workers, such as the one that occurred in Wichita in September with police and firefighters.
According to Stephan's proposal, a three-member arbitration team would be organized when negotiating parties reached an impasse on a contract. Each of the parties—union and government—would select one arbitrator. Those two members would select the third arbitrator.
A binding arbitration law would allow for a quicker settlement of contract disputes, possibly avoiding dangerous consequences of public servant strikes such as one earlier this fall in Memphis, Teun... when riots and arson sections of the city as police and firefighters were striking.
As Stephan says, "It seems so sensible to me, I don't know why there would be any real opposition."
Palestinian resolution key to Mideast peace
BvSTANLEY HOFFMAN
N. Y. Times Feature
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — The treaty that now is being negotiated between Egypt and Israel constitutes an intermediate solution of the Middle Eastern conflict.
The Camp David documents are riddled with ambiguities that concern the Palestinian problem. They will have to be lifted in one of two ways.
The Camp David framework for peace decided the creation of a freely elected "self-governing authority" for the West Bank and Gaza that will have "full autonomy" for five years and negotiate with Israel, Egypt and Jordan the final status of the area, to be submitted to a vote by the representatives of the area's inhabitants.
IMPLICITLY BUT logically the outcome is a Palestinianian entity: either a state submitted only to the kinds of restrictions on its military sovereignty that would have been imposed by the negotiators, or an entity that decides on its own to federate with Jordan or Egypt.
Such an outcome has been feared by many Israelis. But their own government's decision to submit a plan for limited access to Israeli settlements beyond it at Camp David, raises for the first time the possibility of a solution that would meet the essential demands of those Palestinians who have given up the dream of settlement. The lack of whose concern is for security not territory.
However, the other possible outcome is a destruction of the Camp David framework between Palestinians and Palestiniens to play the roles assigned to them. Extremists on both sides reinforce
ONCE PEACE with Egypt is signed, Israeli suspicion that the Camp David agreement is a trap and a prelude to a Palestinian state could encourage the Israeli government to empty it of all substance.
The more radical elements of the Palestine Liberation Organization have already been used against Israel because it sets no date for the end of Israeli occupation, says nothing about borders or the return of the Palestinian population in the power of the transitional authority.
If the peace process does not go on one, can foresee the following effects: Saudi support in Anwar Sadat and preserving its own moderating influence among all the other Arabs united in rejection of what would have become a separate Egyptian-state.
THE UNITED States would be most uncomfortably exposed to Saudi pressure. The Russians would enjoy new opportunities and would become more moral crisis would be likely in an isolated country.
Egypt and the Egyptian-Iranian peace would come under unbelievable strain.
Israeli insecurity would be perpetuated through military occupation of an area with a hostile population that grows much faster than Israel's.
Obviously this outcome has to be avoided, but whether it can be will be determined soon. Under the Camp David agreement, Mr. Obama and his advisers—Jordan whose delegations may include Palestinians—the conditions for establishing the elected self-governing government are clear.
This body will define the scope of the authority's powers by dealing with such vital issues as the future of Israel set forth in the Resolution of Jerusalem to vote in the election, the ownership of state lands, the policing of bridges over the Jordan, the meaning of Jerusalem for Palestinians.
THE ANSWERS to these questions will shape the future of the area both during the first year and in the future. We determine whether the local Palestinians will choose to participate in the elections or to boycott them. And their choice in turn determines whether a comprehensive peace agreement is reached.
Once again it is up to the United States to play a decisive role. Jordan has no interest in taking over the country and becomes clear that the United States seeks the kind of answers that we give the agreement
And while it is futile to expect the PLO to drop its condemnation, it might allow West Bank Palestinians to run for office if opportunities for real self-determination are clarified and if the inhabitants of the West Bank receive the benefits they could gain from the process.
THE CAMP DAVID formula gives Israel a transition period during which the dynamics of peace could lead the public to confront its challenges, in Palestine's self-determination.
It offers the inhabitants of the occupied territories their first experience of self-government and the possibility of developing an indigenous leadership. But more of this will happen unless the conference is modernized now for setting the process in motion.
For the United States, the challenge is even more important than the one President Carter met at Camp David, for it is hard to imagine that a strong concessions is likely to be greatest, especially since the risk of a new Arab-Israeli war has much diminished. But those who advocate delay or benign neglect serve the nation well, and ultimately, that of Israel's security.
Stanley Hoffman, professor of government at Harvard, is a guest speaker.
High court stacked against press
The Supreme Court refused last week to review the case of Myron Farber, the New York Times reporter jailed for 40 days after refusing to surrender his notes in a murder case.
In doing so, the court laid to rest, at least for the time being, the conflict between two rights: the well-established right of a defendant to a fair trial and the not-vestigated right of a defendant to an Amendment grounds, possible evidence in his possession.
The court usually gives no reasons for refusing to hear a case. But unless Farber's plea was handled in an irregular manner, it can be assumed that at least five defendants were in the case disturbing enough to warrant a review.
Frescuing to hear a case has the effect of affirming the lower-court ruling. The New Jersey Supreme Court uphold the validity of the contempt citation against Patti. In the sentence and the $,000-a-day fine lined earlier, the
The press finds few friends on this Supreme Court.
Some disappointment may have been felt in other newsrooms. But, given the membership of the Supreme Court, the denial was probably the best outcome for the court. It has been argued, the court probably had ruled against Farber.
THE LEGAL history of the Farber case thus ends with no clear resolution of its merits. The Times, of course, would have given two Pulitzer Prizes for a favorable ruling. If, however, if only to recoup the more than $200,000 it paid in fees,
The press finds five friends on this Supreme Court. Mentoring the court's unfriendliness to the press here in many as self-serving, but arguing that the press has subscribed at the hands of the Supreme Court is not extravagant.
Rick Alm
The most stinging decision, in the press' opinion, came earlier this year in the Stanford Daily case, in which the court upheld the right of the police to conduct searches in newsrooms.
AND THERE WERE other setbacks for the press. The court rejected the plea of a California television station that said it was being unconstitutionally denied access to a website known to be former President Nikon's famous water-tolerant shoes.
In the court's overall performance, University of Michigan law professor Vincent Blair detects "a certain understate of resentment against the press, a sort of 'Who do they think they are?' feeling among a few justices."
To be fair, however, the nine men who sit on the highest court have not been unremittingly hostile to the press. Established press rights usually have been protected. However, whenever the press has asked for an expansion of First Amendment rights, the present court has sternly refused.
Farber and the Times were asking for new rights.
Farber and the Times were asking for new rights. THE SUPREME Court has never read the First Amendment as exempting reporters from a trial's compulsory processes. Only a court with a solid belief in the societal necessity of press freedom would be willing to ignore the precedent and a grant the press this new right.
At least three of its members are decidedly unfriendly.
to the interests of the press. Chief Justice Warren Burger, his closest ideological ally, William Rehquist, and Harry Blackman share what amounts to a contempt for the press.
Two other justices, Lewis Powell and Byron White, usually join them in voting against press interests. The anti-press blot is not solid—wild in particular has a soft edge. The Justice Schlossberg forms a bulwark against any expansion of press rights.
The press has friends on the court, of course. William Brennan, Thirringgood Marshall and, to a lesser extent, John F. Kennedy. The press is likely to be willing to grant rights to the press, usually in recognition of the vital role the press plays in a free society.
But the friends are now in the minority.
The press needs that as much as it needs another strike at the Times. But, if anything, the future looks bleaker. The governor's retirement prove true, it appears that Brennan has enough problems, will be the next justices to leave the bench.
AND SO PRESS interests have been losing out at the Supreme Court. Based on the record, the present court would have ruled against Farber, possibly by a 5-4 vote. The decision would do nothing but add to the weight of precedent accumulating against the press during the Burzer court.
The press would lose its two best friends.
The five unfriendly justices, on the other hand, are younger and reported in good health. They figure to be the most likely to cause harm.
Barring any shift in their values, then, it will be a long time before the Supreme Court recognizes, a sweeping change.
To the editor:
Student Senate abridges basic rights
On Nov. 29, 1978, the Student Senate of this University adopted a proposal that can only be characterized as one of the most oppressive actions taken by that body owing inception.
This proposal purports to terminate funding to the Student Bar Association of the University of Kansas School of Law in the event that that organization circulates petitions calling on the governor of Kansas to make the city Green from its site on Jawaharlong Boulevard.
That proposal is absolutely antithetical to the fundamental tenets upon which our democratic form of government stands, and that its failure guarantees contained in the First Amendment.
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN letters
We, the undersigned, represent law students on both sides of the issue of whether the statute should be moved. We feel the irresponsible action of the Student body has totally overshadowed that issue by staging at the heart of our constitutional rights.
The Annals of Congress indicate that many members of the Constitutional Congress need a response to the "assembly clause." One representative called it a "self-evident, inalienable right which the people possess; it is certainly a man never would be called in question."
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides "Congress shall make no law, prohibiting the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress."
At first blush it is obvious that the Senate's proposal directly contravenes the rules of government. In 1876, Chief Justice Wailes wrote, "The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its people, a petition for redress of grievances."
Far from being an innovation of the Founding Fathers, the right to petition was an abstraction from the fabric long before the Revolution. It is first mentioned in the Magna Carta, written in 1215, and was guaranteed in broad form to King Henry III. The Commonwealth in 1690 and by the King in 1890.
In addition to violating our constitutional right to petition, the Senate's action also violates our rights of free speech and press, as they have been since 1790. We hearted of Americans as the air they breath."
Free speech is the first freedom. In the words of Alexander Meklejohn, noted First Amendment scholar, "The unbridled rock on which our government stands."
Free speech is an indispensable corollary of our right to vote. Without the information necessary to make an informed choice that choice would be valueless.
It is not the least bit unusual that the Senate should seek to suppress those views to which it is opposed, it has happened many times in many places. As Oliver Willem Holmes put it, "Persecution for the expression of opinions is perfectly logical."
The Student Senate undoubtedly believes itself to be in the right with regard to the statue, and, so believing, wishes to "sweep away all opposition." Yet long ago our country embarked on an experiment which has continued to this day.
That experiment is predicated upon the proposition that free discussion is an indispensable means to the attainment of political truth, and that the best test of an idea is its ability to "get itself accepted in the competition of the mind." The evidence that press have been recorded a preferred status in the spectrum of our constitutional rights.
The actions of the Student Senate show either total disdain for, or complete ignorance of, this constitutional right, so long revered by the American people. Whichever it may be, it makes little difference.
"The greatest danger to freedom lies not in the existence of men of despotic personality, but in that of men with no personality at all. These will gladiate permanently." The simple, yet not know what is happening, they are perfectly unconscious of any wrong."
Last week, Mike Harper, student body president, categorically refused to call a special meeting to reconsider it. Yesterday Harper promised to send a letter of disapproval concerning the proposal to the secretary of the Student Senate.
However, until the Senate affirms this disapproval at its next meeting in January we have been and continue to be deprived of our rights.
Therefore, in furtherance of our Rights the Student Bar Association and several law students acting pro se filed suit yesterday in the Federal District Court in order to enjoy the Student Senate from enforcing its proposal.
We urge you to support our actions by contacting your student representative and asking about the emergency meeting to repeal the proposal in question. We have no wish to involve the Senate in an extended court battle, we have this violation of our rights remedied.
We emphasize that the issue of the statue is not involved here. What is involved is the right of law students, both for and against the move, to speak out on that issue. Indeed, we have already heard from a member of the community depending on the Senate for funds to speak out on any issue.
What, for example, would distinguish the present situation from withdrawal of funds from the university's educational policy did not reflect the political viewpoint of the Senate? If the Senate's action is allowed to stand, no one should be able to safely exercise its first amendment rights.
In closing, we leave you with the words of James Madison:
"A popular government, with popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is not a powerful institution, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives."
John B. Gage II,
Eudora law student
And three other law students
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Published at the University of Northampton daily August through May and Monday through Thursday for $75.00, plus subscription for $125.00 or $300.00 if subscribed to BET. For Douglas County and BET for subscribed to BET, please visit www.bet.org. Includes two copies in BET for subscribed to BET and one copy in Douglas County and BET for subscribed to BET. In addition, an online catalog is available at www.universityofnorthampton.edu/catalog.
Managing Editor Jerry Sass
Editor
Steve Frazier
Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editor
Assistant Campus Editors
Editorial Editor
Barrett Massey
Dan Bowersman
Dan Schoenbeer
Dick Seidel, Pam Mannon
Stefanie Seidel, Pam Mannon
Business Manager
Associate Business Manager Assistant Business Manager
Associate World贸迅 Bret Millar
Advertising Manager
Jeff Kious
Nick Hadley
General Manager
Riek Musser
Advertising Adviser Chuck Chowins